Civilization is not for 3 year olds.

[GePap]

I have come to like C3C better than Civ2 out of the box-yes, various things are inferior, and I wish more SMAC influences had remained, but in the end, it is a fine game.

As for the debate- this is a game in which I can, with a click of a button exterminate more digital denizens than say in GTA, though not as graphically. Just the fact that you have to devote a lot of time and that the action is engrossing but slow make it difficult to make TBS games "kid games"- I have seen no TBS than comes close.

That said, I agree about sophistication - I don't care if graphics for cIV stay the same as now-they are fine now- I want deeper diplomacy, a modified economic and resource system at the least, that and a social engineering screen, which should have been in this game as it is. Ideally, I have proposed a fundamentally different basis for the game, but that won't happen.

[dacole]

Agreed! See the post I am about to make for one pcgamer comment that scared the crap out of me....

[Alex]

I really don't care if the game is cartoony or not, or if it streamlines some boring micromanagement... I want it to be a deeply complex and engrossing strategy game, with a good AI and a good sense of immersion in the game world.

Oh, and where is the banana option?

[GAZ082]

There are two markets, fellas:

* The veteran players from CIV1 and 2 (like me) who feel that the game has great stuff like borders and fancy graphics, but lacks of complexity (that does have CIV2).

* New players that the first CIV game they ever played was CIV3 that find the game complex enough (comparing to the other games in the market).

Im afraid the second group is far more numerous than the first and Sid has to make his bucks to put the bread on the table (but i think he can retire right now and live with luxuries ).

Pradox games (Europa Universalis I, II, Crusade Kings, Victoria, HOI 1 n 2) are complex enough. I'd really love to see a CIV game made by those guys.

[Civrules]

In my opinion Firaxis makes two different kinds of products.

In general, the two are great games, no doubt.
1. Products that attract kids’ attention more, but can be definately played by adults (Pirates!)
2. Products which you can learn a lot from and use a lot of strategy, and that also require a lot of thinking (Civ)

I hope that when Firaxis says, "changing the fanbase slightly," they don't mean making Civ IV appeal to younger people, because I wouldn't like that either. However, if it is just the graphics that appeal to kids more, and not the mechanics, I’d not care.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Earthling7
Hear, hear.

two extremes, CivIII vs EUII. CivIV should be somewhere in between.

Which one is the serious and which one is the cartoonie one?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by GAZ082


Pradox games (Europa Universalis I, II, Crusade Kings, Victoria, HOI 1 n 2) are complex enough. I'd really love to see a CIV game made by those guys.

With Crusader Kings -> Europa Universalis -> Victoria save game conveters, it's practically a game of civ.

[Solver]

However, if you want a serious, involving game of Civ...I suggest you check out SMACX

Which is by now only possible to play in MP.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by GAZ082
There are two markets, fellas:

* The veteran players from CIV1 and 2 (like me) who feel that the game has great stuff like borders and fancy graphics, but lacks of complexity (that does have CIV2).

* New players that the first CIV game they ever played was CIV3 that find the game complex enough (comparing to the other games in the market).

I would hope that obvious ways to combine these two approaches in one game are taken. For example,

The city governor of civ3 could be on or off depending on your playstyle. Most people here at Apolyton would select the governor off, but to a new player, that is a nice feature to assist with gameplay. Both "markets" of players are satisified with an arrangement like this.

Can it then be possible to increase detail and complexity while programming options to help the new player?

[FrostyBoy]

When Civ1 first came out, the depthness and complexity is what intrigued most players; as time passed, games in general got deeper and more complex. So new player or not, a serious game of civ would intrigue those who are intested in civilizations, history, etc



I have this very strong worrying feeling that Firaxis are going to screw this up again.



And I will say it loud and clear. Civilization is not for people who want to play simple games with no purpose. Civilization is about, politics, leadership, economics, geography, war, technology and people. These are all serious subjects, all should be taken seriously and accurately. Why this should be dumbed down to majorly appeal to children can only be frustrating for Civ's main fanbase.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GAZ082
There are two markets, fellas:

* The veteran players from CIV1 and 2 (like me) who feel that the game has great stuff like borders and fancy graphics, but lacks of complexity (that does have CIV2).

* New players that the first CIV game they ever played was CIV3 that find the game complex enough (comparing to the other games in the market).

Eh, I've played both. I still like the C3 interface the best.

[Maniac]

I read on the Firaxis site under "Did you know:" that the average gamer is 28 these days. Won't Firaxis then cut in their own meat by changing the fanbase and make the game for 3-year olds? Or is the real problem most average 28-year olds have the minds of three-year olds?

[FrostyBoy]

Comrade; SMACX is goodl, but I want Earth, earth's history, you know what I mean.

Even SMACX isn't deep enough.

[Apocalypse]

Come on....by saying 3 year olds all the time, it's getting a bit immature. We know it's not for three year olds. Civ has always been a bit silly anyway...which is part of what they are going for with those leaderheads in Civ3. The advisors were a bit silly and so were the elvis heads. It doesn't really take away from the core game.

[FrostyBoy]

Yes, it is obvious that it's not for 3 year olds. I am just trying to make a bold point to Firaxis: aim for the people who care about this sort of stuff, not the people who don't care/don't understand it.

Humour is fine, humour is also a part of Civilization, but Firaxis are over doing it just a little bit (especially with the units, far too cartoonish looking). Can't we at least have SOME serious moments in the game?

After a nuclear weapon hits a city, you don't really get any feedback from your own people, other leaders and you don't really see the destruction of the city and its ppl that you just destroyed. It's just kind of bland.

There is little emotional attachment to the actions that you do, is that not what a leader has to face the most?